View Full Version : I Want to Vote for Ron Paul, But I Don’t Feel Like Converting to Islam

Bradley in DC
10-21-2007, 12:50 PM

I Want to Vote for Ron Paul, But I Don’t Feel Like Converting to Islam
Posted on October 20, 2007 by fooser
November 5th 2008. One day after election night 2008, Ron Paul is victorious, and the United States of America becomes an Islamic nation. Terrorists in the Middle East proclaim victory and rejoice. Sharia law is implemented in all areas of the United States and Islam becomes the official religion of the state. Islamic holidays are recognized and Christianity is persecuted on a wide scale. This is what neoconservatives across the country would want you to think about a Ron Paul victory through their various smear methods. What is sad is that not only is it wrong, but it’s baseless to the point that I wonder if they have any intelligent thoughts remaining, or if they have used them all up already a year before the election actually comes.
In this nutjob blog called “Right in a Left World,” who happens to promote neocon scum Duncan Hunter as their choice right on the top of the page, questions if Ron Paul will now convert to Islam because of an incomplete debate quote they use. Now here is the quote the author uses at the beginning of his false smear:
In the debates held in South Carolina this past May, Dr. Paul was quoted, “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it…”
The author then goes on to describe the September 6th video Osama Bin Laden released which showed him discussing Islam, and how the United States will lose, and basically making another plea for everyone to convert. Then the blogger makes some bizarre leap to say that since Ron Paul said “we should listen to our enemies,” that automatically means that Ron Paul will convert to Islam in the name of peace.
“My question to Dr. Ron Paul, since he encourages us to “listen to those who attacked us,” is, will you be the first to now convert to Islam, Dr. Paul?”
Apparently this writers memory skills are subpar, so let me help him out here. Just two paragraphs above you put the entire quote from the debate. You conveniently left it out at the bottom, so let me bold it for you, in case you made an innocent mistake and forgot to give the real quote, which proved your entire blog post to be complete crap:
“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it…”
The purpose of the statement was to put forth the point that we should listen to the reasons we were attacked, otherwise we do not understand our enemy, and how we can avoid spreading unnecessary resentment towards us in the future. He wasn’t saying, “let’s listen to our enemies and incorporate everything they say into our lives and nation.” Having soldiers in Saudi Arabia, invading Iraq, and having permanent bases in other countries has nothing to do with our national security, and has nothing to do with Ron Paul wanting to convert to Islam. For some reason you think, when we get attacked, we shouldn’t think, “uhm, why did they do that?” Ever heard the phrase “know thy enemy”?
It seems the warmongering side of the Republican Party doesn’t understand that Ron Paul knows and acknowledges they are our enemies. He even called them “monstrous” among other things in another debate. The difference is, the neocons appease to groups like Al’Qaeda. Nothing gives them a better recruiting drive than to have America keep invading Islamic countries for no reason. This perpetuates the radical Islamic movement, it gives them empowerment. Perhaps think about that for a little while?
Paul has also taken heat from people based on some comments after the September debate where he stated the Islamic Fascism is just a propoganda concept to spread the conflict even further, and produce some sort of fear among the people to believe this foreign policy is necessary. Tom Bevan, the author of the article finishes by stating:
“For Paul to ridicule the term “Islamofascist” as propaganda and to insinuate that anyone who uses it is a warmonger seeking to spread conflict in the Middle East shows how wildly out of touch he is with the vast majority of the American public. More to the point, Paul’s willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists calls into question his fitness to fulfill the constitutional duty of the Commander in Chief to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic.”
Every public servant also has the duty of upholding the Constitution of the United States. Meaning, getting a declaration of war, not taking away civil liberties through atrocious legislation such as the Patriot Act and various surveillance legislation. I think most people would agree that George Bush has NOT upheld the constitution. And I also disagree that he is “wildly out of touch with the vast majority of the American public.” Most people in America want us out of Iraq, most people know it was a mistake, most people don’t want more war (via going into Iran), so I think it is you who is out of touch with the American people.
Another blog called “Brutally Honest” went along the same lines as the first point. A quote in a debate about listening to why our enemies attacked us turns into Ron Paul wanting to convert to Islam. The blogger ends his small post with these remarks:
“Mr. Paul, who speaks sensibly on many other subjects, came across as the complete buffoon last night on this one issue. And in my view, it disqualifies him completely and convincingly from this race.
Good bye Mr. Paul. Good riddance.”
Neoconservatives have been disqualifying Ron Paul for a long time. Remember back during that same debate, when Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani had their mini-discussion about 9-11? I believe it followed right after the comments about listening to why we were attacked. That night and the next day all the conservative commentators were saying it was over for Ron Paul. Yet he’s still here months later, and stronger than ever. Many people now accept that is was Rudy Giuliani who came off like a buffoon that night.
A Cornell Daily Sun blogger writes:
“However, I have decided to give Ron Paul’s strategy, “listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” and try to negotiate with the terrorists. OK, Mr. bin Laden, what can we do to avoid future attacks, or “blowback” as Ron Paul calls it? The answer in three parts, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, a book which Ron Paul included on his reading list for Rudy Giuliani, is “that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture.” Wait, not just withdraw troops from Iraq? The entire Middle East, including Afghanistan, which definitely has connections to terrorism? And even if we do that, we have only fulfilled the first part of bin Laden’s request, and thus bin Laden would still have reason to target us. Good luck trying to convert America to Islam. Maybe that’s why the United States does not negotiate with terrorists…”
Ron Paul initially supported the resolution for going into Afghanistan, to get Osama Bin Laden and the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks. What actually occured was a defeat of the Taliban, a botched effort to get Bin Laden and his top aides, a sort of pull out to redirect attention to Iraq, and now we are nation building in Afghanistan, unable to do anything against Al’Qaeda since a lot of them are in Pakistan. Under these conditions, why not just get out? The people of Afghanistan do not like Al’Qaeda or the Taliban. We’re wasting money and lives in Afghanistan, and the mission has not been accomplished. This is just another baseless assertion that there is some section within Ron Paul’s policies that says we’re all going to convert to Islam.
Ron Paul is a practicing Christian and believes strongly in the values of individual liberty in freedom. To say that he wants a conversion to Islam and Sharia law, the two opposites of his belief, is just using fear and making baseless insults. There is nothing wrong with understanding why someone attacked you.
In fact, I would say that Ron Paul is one of Al’Qaeda’s worst enemies. So instead of the scenario given at the beginning of this post, I would post something more like this: November 5th 2008, Ron Paul wins the election. He makes plans with Congress to make the quickest and safest removal of U.S. forces from Iraq and other permanent locations in the Middle East, and around the world, saving the United States billions of dollars each year, while taking away key recruitment tools for terrorist organizations.
This is similar to Ann Coulter’s false assertion that if a Democrat wins the 2008 election, she would need to be “fitted for a burka.” There is no truth to any of this, it is just being thrown out there to smear and get attention. Know thy enemy, stop their recruitment, stop giving inspiration for more terrorism. This is one of the most effective national security plans we have from a presidential candidate right now.

10-21-2007, 12:59 PM
OK - is the author of this piece actually supporting Paul, or mocking him?

Bradley in DC
10-21-2007, 01:09 PM
OK - is the author of this piece actually supporting Paul, or mocking him?

supports Dr. Paul, mocking critics

10-21-2007, 01:52 PM
I am so tired of NeoCons, I want my Republican Party back.

10-21-2007, 04:48 PM
I wish the Neo-cons would convert to Sanity.

10-21-2007, 04:50 PM
I wish the Neo-cons would convert to Sanity.

Such a strange hunger for war, these people have fear-mongered their way into power for the last time.

10-21-2007, 04:53 PM
I wish the Neo-cons would convert to Sanity.

let's pray for that.

10-21-2007, 07:51 PM
Ok Bradley, now just for arguments sake, what do you have for those folks out there that would combat islamofascism and support RP. Any seats under the big tent for these folks (and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them).